COMMON CITIZEN OF INDIA (COMMON MAN) Vs. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition seeks a review of our order passed on 6th May, 2016 in the above writ petition.

(2.) The judgment delivered by us itself records as to how on the prior occasion this court had examined the issues raised by the present petitioners. The attempt of the petitioners was to seek a rehearing of the same issues, which were concluded by the earlier orders of this court. Therefore, in our detailed judgment, we had applied the same parameters that are applied for deciding review petitions. Now, the judgment we delivered in the writ petition is sought to be reviewed by the present proceedings. The writ petition projected the grievance and stated to be of common helpless citizens in not being able to file petitions and applications in Marathi language in this court. The plea of alleged discrimination and differential treatment to litigants who wish to file proceedings in Marathi language and argue them in that language was squarely raised. The argument that Marathi being the language of the State, a petitioner/party appearing in person must be allowed to file and institute petitions/applications in Marathi language and equally to argue them in Marathi language was noted and duly considered. In the earlier round, on such a grievance, a detailed judgment and order was passed in Writ Petition No. 10972 of 2015 (the writ petition on which the judgment and order under review was passed).

(3.) Now the petitioners in the present review petition urge that they were not granted a complete opportunity of espousing their cause and elaborating their grievances. The review petitioners would submit that the question and issue of larger public interest is of access to justice. Access to justice is denied if a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not allowed to be filed with pleadings in Marathi language. That was precisely the grievance considered in the earlier round. We also found, from a perusal of the present review petition, that once again the very grievance is raised. The petitioners refer to their written arguments tendered during the course of the hearing of Writ Petition No.10972 of 2015. The petitioners state that there are factual errors and mistakes in the judgment. They highlight in para 9.1 the fact that the citations and judgments tendered by the petitioners have not been referred by this court. There is also no reference to the plea raised by the petitioners on the applicability and interpretation of Articles 350 and 39A of the Constitution of India. Similarly, there are other errors and as highlighted in the sub-paras of para 9.1.